A question and
answer session conducted by MediaShift with Nobel
Prize-winning scientist Steve Running has shed light on
the two-edged sword that new media brings to the
reporting of new science discoveries and developments.

While traditional reporting publications are losing
their control over science stories appearing in the
media (a good thing), quality control over the stories
that appear is declining, as stories appear in the
public press before being vetted through peer review.
According to Running, peer review is still the best
quality control for facts, but the blogosphere does not
have it.

The trend of universities creating their own
Websites and press releases instead of publishing
through a traditional science journal also opens up new
possibilities. Running sees this as a migration of
science journalism from traditional media to newspaper
offices. In this case, the onus is on the university's
press office to make sure that releases are factual and
accurate.

One development that he lauded was the use of
video as a form of communication from scientists to the
public. He cites the NOAA climate change Website and how
leading scientists are featured in video clips, allowing
the public to hear directly from the scientists about
what they think, what they have found, and why it
matters.

Ultimately, his conclusion is that it's a good
thing that information is getting out more quickly and
coming from a wider variety of sources. More news will
reach more people. The downside is that some news may
not be totally accurate.